Tackling M6 "finder flare" cheaply

[mukul_dube]

<p>That is generous praise, Desmond. Thank you. I have only as many photos in my Photo.Net gallery as are permitted to a free account. It happens that last year someone unknown paid for a subscription for me, but that will end soon. I have been troubled by the fact that I do not know who it was and cannot even say "Thank you". You can, if you are interested, find more of my work at the link below.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8234304@N03/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/8234304@N03/</a></p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>In http://nemeng.com/leica/020b.shtml Rob Schneider is quoted as saying, "The rangefinder/viewfinder on the M6TTL .72 is the same as on the M6 "Classic". It's also the same as on the M4-P and, apparently, the later runs of the M4-2. A condenser lens was removed from the frame masking mechanism, making the framelines and RF patch slightly brighter and contrastier..."; and Alexander Kraus is quoted as saying, "Recently, I found an interesting posting in the Leica customer forum, where someone stated that the reason for the whiteout of the rangefinder patch would be the switch from a flat mirror (for brightline illumination) to a parabolic one."<br /><br />In "LEICAVIEW" (SPRING 2003 • LEICA CAMERA INC. • VOLUME 14 • NUMBER 1) we see praise of the MP's "advanced viewfinder which incorporates a reshaped mirror and extra lens element to eliminate ghost images in the rangefinder field and to more evenly illuminate frame lines."<br /><br />That is, when something that was removed earlier was re-installed, it was hailed as a leap forward.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I'm somewhat of an idealist, so I find it routinely disappoints me when companies do that which you mention, change something and call it an improvement, and then go back to the original and call<em> that too </em>an improvment. I won't focus on Leica in particular here, since it is so common in the commercial world. It always serves to remind me to take anything any company says with an appropriate amount of suspicion. </p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Lies, evasion, half-truths and deception are common in our world. I do not see why a business house which has a history of making good products should be considered so virtuous as to be above all those. A business house exists, ultimately, with the primary motive of profit. Rather a pity that the camera industry has not attracted the attention of a Ralph Nader.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>My M6 arrived from DAG early in the afternoon, just 45 days after I had despatched it. Within an hour I had held the camera at various angles to the bright sky through my window, spending much time with the light source to the upper left of the direction in which the camera was aimed. The R/F patch was not affected at any position. It may be that the frame lines are a little less bright, although they are still clearly visible.<br /><br />At dusk I was at a social function. A man was singing on stage, accompanied by a few musicians. There was stage lighting, of course, and as I was close with a 50mm, I also got direct light from the floods at the side of the stage. I did not pay attention to possible focussing trouble, I did not remember that this camera had given enormous trouble, I just went ahead and took pictures as I used to do with the two M3s and one M2 I have had. I could concentrate on image and focus and framing while ignoring the camera.<br /><br />Looking to the facts, "upgrade" is quite the wrong word. It should be "downgrade", perhaps, or "restoration".</p>